Legrand Richards' "Truth" On The 1978 Priesthood Restoration

[Stone holm]

Of course he was a racist. Many from his era were. some were even worse. I served my mission in Italy, where the racism far exceeded anything I have encountered here. Should I have just given up on them? Were they lost?

Are his sins greater than yours or mine? Why do you stand in such harsh judgment of him?

What is your list of sins that would disqualify one from serving in the church? Do you expect only resurrected celestial beings to lead the church or is the position open to mortals?

He said in the letter that he didn't speak for the church in his letter and that it was his private opinion. Is anyone allowed to have an opinion on a controversial subject? He also states in the letter that Romney has the right to his opinion. He also supported the priesthood revelation when it came.

For you Is Racism the one unpardonable sin?

Often times people will tell me that the don't attend church because someone at church was being a jerk to them. I tell them that the atonement was also for jerks and who are we to exclude someone who sins differently than we do.

The problem here is that we unfairly expect General Authorities to be above such failings even if they are the cultural norm of the day. This is one of the conundrums that follows when we combine belief that we are in the True Church with the emphasis on obedience. At the time this letter was written, it is my understanding from "David O McKay and The Rise of Modern Mormonism" that Benson was trying to talk Pres McKay into letting him run for the Presidency. Had he been able to do so the damage to the Church would have been immense. The problem with racism in our eyes is that to us , in these times, is in fact probably a more serious offence than sexual indiscretion because it evokes repulsive views against a whole swath of humanity over something that people have no control over and in this case ascribes such repulsive views to The Lord. Such comes very close to the very acts which we ascribe to Sons of Perdition. I can only reconcile this behaviour with the belief that The Lord at the time was working with Americans in general to change our culture and allowed the leadership to engage in this vice while he prepared America including the White Saints to accept the change, but He did act to prevent leaders like ETB from doing irreparable harm to the Church.

[sheilauk]

Hamba Tuhan, on 18 July 2013 - 02:57 AM, said:

Well, we got as far as Lorenzo Snow only because of a granddaughter who felt impressed to share an unrecorded experience. (Both Heber J. Grant and Anthon H. Lund were present when Pres Snow finally shared this experience with the Twelve, but they never felt the need to speak of it until after Allie did.) And we got as far as Joseph F. Smith, it would seem, because he was instructed to share a specific addition to the corpus of doctrine.

This sounds familiar to me. Do you find the description somehow inaccurate or inadequate?

Not inadequate. I find it similar to the way we are all invited to seek inspiration.

But it does mean that the inspiration the leaders receive is defined by the questions they are willing to consider.

If they'd not been willing to ask the question on black priesthood (as Stapley appears not to from his letter) then we might be waiting still today.

I wonder what other things we do or don't do because of questions that simply haven't occurred to them yet.

Isn't that essentially how Joseph Smith also received revelation? He had a question and went to pray for an answer (including the First Vision). How often did the Lord simply appear to him and tell him something? It doesn't seem that it happened that way often (and usually by an angelic messenger - eg Moroni's visits). His answers were given in a more dramatic fashion than most but were still basically in answer to questions he asked. It seems to me that that is the Lord's preferred method, if we can't think to ask the question, maybe we aren't ready for the answer.

[Tacenda]

The blacks being denied the priesthood should never have occurred, since God is no respecter of persons. And all Christians can hold the priesthood because that High Priest is Jesus. We can all hold him unto us.

Edited July 19, 2013 by Tacenda

[phaedrus ut]

I would love to see the church publish the story of the lifting of the various bans that black women had in the church. I'm sure there are black female members who would find the revelation received on their behalf uplifting.

Phaedrus

[USU78]

He did act to prevent leaders like ETB from doing irreparable harm to the Church.

Pure nonsense.

Trendylefty dreck.

Tendentious drivel.

Unworthy of an adult.

[Calm]

And all Christians can hold the priesthood because that High Priest is Jesus.

Christ has always been the High Priest, has he not? If so, then why was the Levite Priesthood limited to a certain number of individuals among the Levites?

[Danzo]

The problem here is that we unfairly expect General Authorities to be above such failings even if they are the cultural norm of the day. This is one of the conundrums that follows when we combine belief that we are in the True Church with the emphasis on obedience. At the time this letter was written, it is my understanding from "David O McKay and The Rise of Modern Mormonism" that Benson was trying to talk Pres McKay into letting him run for the Presidency. Had he been able to do so the damage to the Church would have been immense. The problem with racism in our eyes is that to us , in these times, is in fact probably a more serious offence than sexual indiscretion because it evokes repulsive views against a whole swath of humanity over something that people have no control over and in this case ascribes such repulsive views to The Lord. Such comes very close to the very acts which we ascribe to Sons of Perdition. I can only reconcile this behaviour with the belief that The Lord at the time was working with Americans in general to change our culture and allowed the leadership to engage in this vice while he prepared America including the White Saints to accept the change, but He did act to prevent leaders like ETB from doing irreparable harm to the Church.

Racists as sons of perdition?

This is new to me. this is a bold statement, and explains a lot on your point of view.

Although I often hesitate to rank sins (the lord cannot look upon sin with least degree of allowance), why is racism worse than sexual sin?

I am curious for you to elaborate on this.

[USU78]

Racists as sons of perdition?

This is new to me. this is a bold statement, and explains a lot on your point of view.

Although I often hesitate to rank sins (the lord cannot look upon sin with least degree of allowance), why is racism worse than sexual sin?

I am curious for you to elaborate on this.

Trendylefty nonsense.

What is called racism is no more serious a crime than any other species of xenophobia.

"I thank Thee, L-rd, that Thou hast chosen me from amongst these racists to be Thine only, chosen vessel of virtue!"

[Traela]

If there had not been the ban, we would still be having almost the exact same conversation, only on why we had segregated congregations, or why blacks were not allowed to hold certain callings. Like it or not, the USA was a racist country, some parts more than others. Even the possibly of blacks having authority over whites would have led to deaths. Was this why God allowed the ban? I don't know. But I do suspect it was easier to make a simple, clean, the way we did things before vs the way we did things after, break with the past.

[Tacenda]

While reading Delbert Stapley's letter to George Romney, I noticed the book he listed, Mormonism and the Negro, is a book that is sitting on my book shelf, I've yet to read it. It is a little brown book and looks and smells musty. It was in a collection of books my mom had kept, probably handed down from family. After reading what this book says, it just might be time to clean up my bookshelf and get rid of things that might paint me as a racist to my posterity.

[Stone holm]

Racists as sons of perdition?

This is new to me. this is a bold statement, and explains a lot on your point of view.

Although I often hesitate to rank sins (the lord cannot look upon sin with least degree of allowance), why is racism worse than sexual sin?

I am curious for you to elaborate on this.

Sexual sin has primarily an impact on only those involved with some collateral damage if it causes a divorce. Racism impacts by definition an entire class of people most of whom are completely innocent of any wrong doing. What cranks it up to being teetering close to that of the sin commited by sons of perdition is when racism is attributed to god, as being god's will. Your average racist like my Republican libertarian parents back in Indiana and the majority of their neighbors, is probably not that serious of a sin. However, when somebody in a position of authority takes it up to the next level and attributes racism to be God's will -- then you are talking about something very, very serious -- since it can lead an entire generation astray and result in very serious consequences to completely innocent folks, who cannot find a decent place to live, cannot find employment, cannot eat at certain restaurants, whose children cannot use public pools and other facilities. Had Strom Thurmond and Ezra Taft Benson been successful in their bids to gain executive authority, America could potentially have wound up like Apartheid South Africa -- instead we escaped that and only the Department of Agriculture became the last governmental bastion of racism in America.

If the race baiting and politicizing continues the thread will be locked.

[Danzo]

Sexual sin has primarily an impact on only those involved with some collateral damage if it causes a divorce. Racism impacts by definition an entire class of people most of whom are completely innocent of any wrong doing. What cranks it up to being teetering close to that of the sin commited by sons of perdition is when racism is attributed to god, as being god's will. Your average racist like my Republican libertarian parents back in Indiana and the majority of their neighbors, is probably not that serious of a sin. However, when somebody in a position of authority takes it up to the next level and attributes racism to be God's will -- then you are talking about something very, very serious -- since it can lead an entire generation astray and result in very serious consequences to completely innocent folks, who cannot find a decent place to live, cannot find employment, cannot eat at certain restaurants, whose children cannot use public pools and other facilities. Had Strom Thurmond and Ezra Taft Benson been successful in their bids to gain executive authority, America could potentially have wound up like Apartheid South Africa -- instead we escaped that and only the Department of Agriculture became the last governmental bastion of racism in America.

If the race baiting and politicizing continues the thread will be locked.

Did you read the letter, it was explicit in the letter that he was not speaking for the church. He said it several times. It is obvious that he thought it was gods will. Do you think that his thoughts make him a son of perdition? Do we have any evidence of his actions? Or are just thinking the thoughts bring one to the level of a son of perdition?

Edited July 19, 2013 by Danzo

[Stone holm]

Did you read the letter, it was explicit in the letter that he was not speaking for the church. He said it several time. It is obvious that he thought it was gods will. Do you think that his thoughts make him a son of perdition? Do we have any evidence of his actions? Or are just thinking the thoughts bring one to the level of a son of perdition?

Can't respond as i do not want to cause someones thread to be locked.

[USU78]

If there had not been the ban, we would still be having almost the exact same conversation, only on why we had segregated congregations, or why blacks were not allowed to hold certain callings. Like it or not, the USA was a racist country, some parts more than others. Even the possibly of blacks having authority over whites would have led to deaths. Was this why God allowed the ban? I don't know. But I do suspect it was easier to make a simple, clean, the way we did things before vs the way we did things after, break with the past.

Segregated congregations are a hit-and-miss proposition in Zion. Indeed, in the History of Box Elder Stake there is an anecdote recorded where the XIXth Century Welsh converts in Brigham City were forbidden from forming their own ward on pain of excommunication . . . while the German emigres in Salt Lake were permitted a German-language ward, which is still, unless my information is dated, in operation.

I rather favor the melting-post policies of BY than the present one of having Spanish-language branches.

[Stone holm]

Segregated congregations are a hit-and-miss proposition in Zion. Indeed, in the History of Box Elder Stake there is an anecdote recorded where the XIXth Century Welsh converts in Brigham City were forbidden from forming their own ward on pain of excommunication . . . while the German emigres in Salt Lake were permitted a German-language ward, which is still, unless my information is dated, in operation.

I rather favor the melting-post policies of BY than the present one of having Spanish-language branches.

Given the fact that Spanish speaking individuals are likely to become the most numerous language group in the future, I hope that the melting pot concept doesn't mean I have to learn Spanish any time soon since I really am bad at foreign languages.

[cinepro]

If there had not been the ban, we would still be having almost the exact same conversation, only on why we had segregated congregations, or why blacks were not allowed to hold certain callings.

If there hadn't been a ban, why would blacks have not been allowed to hold certain callings?

As for segregation, having certain members of the Church meet in a different congregation based on race is quite a bit different than a policy denying them priesthood and Temple blessings based on race.

[Stone holm]

If there hadn't been a ban, why would blacks have not been allowed to hold certain callings?

As for segregation, having certain members of the Church meet in a different congregation based on race is quite a bit different than a policy denying them priesthood and Temple blessings based on race.

Would that have been a bad conversation to have?

[omni]

Of course he was a racist. Many from his era were. some were even worse. I served my mission in Italy, where the racism far exceeded anything I have encountered here. Should I have just given up on them? Were they lost?

Are his sins greater than yours or mine? Why do you stand in such harsh judgment of him?

On this thread you have repeatedly fallen into the trap of creating what is probably the most common straw man on this board. The critics and questioning members here don't expect the prophets to be perfect, but we do expect them to be leaders of what the saints and the world as a whole can look to as examples of Christ's disciples.

We are consistently admonished to live in the world but not of it. Do you think brushing aside their racist views because many of their era also had them is a good example for us to follow? Currently it's the norm to take the Lord's name in vain, break the WoW, watch rated "R" movies, and have extramarital relations. If the current prophet engaged in these activities should we dismiss him as a "man of his era", or should we hold him to the standard of a prophet of God?

Edited July 20, 2013 by omni

[omni]

Isn't that essentially how Joseph Smith also received revelation? He had a question and went to pray for an answer (including the First Vision). How often did the Lord simply appear to him and tell him something? It doesn't seem that it happened that way often (and usually by an angelic messenger - eg Moroni's visits). His answers were given in a more dramatic fashion than most but were still basically in answer to questions he asked. It seems to me that that is the Lord's preferred method, if we can't think to ask the question, maybe we aren't ready for the answer.

How do you know that know other prophet before SWK asked God about the ban? Do you believe that God would deny an entire race of people the blessings of the priesthood and temple simply because a prophet didn't think it prudent to ask about the ban?

[Stone holm]

On this thread you have repeatedly fallen into the trap of creating what is probably the most common straw man on this board. The critics and questioning members here don't expect the prophets to be perfect, but we do expect them to be leaders of what the saints and the world as a whole can look to as examples of Christ's disciples.

We are consistently admonished to live in the world but not of it, do you think brushing aside their racist views because many of his era had them is a good example of this? In our era it is the norm to swear, drink alcohol, watch rated "R" movies, and have premarital sex. If the current prophet engaged in these activities should we dismiss him as a "man of his era", or should we hold him to the standard of a prophet of God?

I suspect he was merely trying to say that they are human and are prone to the same cultural influences that we are all prone to have. You might recall that the Word of Wisdom was not initially pronounced as a commandment, and for decades afterwards the Brethren continued to use tobacco and alcohol. The Lord tolerated it for a long time, but eventually it became a commandment. Racial prejudice was deeply engrained in our society and remained so well past the 1960's and in certain segments of the country it is still alive, well and kicking. In my opinion, one of the things which has really served to overcome it were the increasing number of mixed marriages after the 1960s and the number of white women with black children. Once people had children who had crossed the racial divide, and had bi racial grandchildren their hearts softened and that had a massive impact on American social mores.

[Stone holm]

How do you know that know other prophet before SWK asked God about the ban? Do you believe that God would deny an entire race of people the blessings of the priesthood and temple simply because a prophet didn't think it prudent to ask about the ban?

Depends on how critical it was to Him to tackle the problem at that point in history, and whether He felt that it was essential that a change occur at a specific time or whether it would be better to wait until the Saints were ready to accept the revelation. If God had felt that it was the right time for the change to occur, then He would have either sent a visitation or removed by death any prophet who wasn't paying attention to the issue.

[omni]

Depends on how critical it was to Him to tackle the problem at that point in history, and whether He felt that it was essential that a change occur at a specific time or whether it would be better to wait until the Saints were ready to accept the revelation.

So the saints were ready to accept polygamy, WoW (at least eventually once prohibition started), modern prophets, extra biblical scripture, theosis, a brutal trek to the desert, blacks as members of the church, but they would have all eventually revolted if we continued to give blacks the priesthood? Hmmm...

Edited July 20, 2013 by omni

[Tacenda]

How do you know that know other prophet before SWK asked God about the ban? Do you believe that God would deny an entire race of people the blessings of the priesthood and temple simply because a prophet didn't think it prudent to ask about the ban?

Good questions, I think it's pretty obvious the answer to these.

[Calm]

How do you know that know other prophet before SWK asked God about the ban? Do you believe that God would deny an entire race of people the blessings of the priesthood and temple simply because a prophet didn't think it prudent to ask about the ban?

David O. McKay asked about lifting the ban and was told "Not yet".

Racial prejudice was deeply engrained in our society and remained so well past the 1960's and in certain segments of the country it is still alive, well and kicking.

Sunday morning is the most segregated hours of our life here in the US for the majority of sects.**** It is sad that often when one congregation intentionally tries to integrate older members migrate out....one great advantage to the LDS system of assigning members by geography.

****

The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., once said "it is appalling that the most segregated hour of Christian America is eleven o'clock on Sunday morning."

The Multiracial Congregations Project http://hirr.hartsem.edu/org/faith_congregations_research_multiracl.html, led by Michael Emerson, a Rice University sociologist, defines a multiracial congregation as one where no one racial group is more than 80% of the congregation. Using that standard, Emerson has found that only 8% of all Christian congregations in the U.S. are racially mixed to a significant degree: 2-3% of mainline Protestant congregations, 8% of other Protestant congregations, and 20% of Catholic parishes.

Edited July 20, 2013 by calmoriah

[BlueDreams]

So the saints were ready to accept polygamy, WoW (at least eventually once prohibition started), modern prophets, extra biblical scripture, theosis, a brutal trek to the desert, blacks as members of the church, but they would have all eventually revolted if we continued to give blacks the priesthood? Hmmm...

Technically, the saints could not be ready for a specific change without it meaning that the change would have been catastrophic with mass exoduses, members protesting, etc. They can be unprepared for a greater command without it meaning the end of the people/religion in general.

Though i disagree with a number of Stone holm's ideas/reasoning for this, I do believe the general body's desire and openness to change was a necessary component for the change to occur. And frankly, necessity for the work to move along (like in brazil where this was extremely problematic) would also be reasoning to get this changed (where prior the amount of members effected were marginal).

Though I do not know the full reasoning behind its timeline and change, I do think that the fact that the question was brought up before, had been a topic of public discussion/pressures on and in the church for at least a decade, and the policy did not change is indicative that the timing and direct revelation was important. Personally, that Mckay -who seriously desired a change and still ended up expanding privileges and capacities as much as possible within the ban - got a strong answer not to changing the policy is indicative of at least necessary timing, and leaves a strong possibility about the necessity of greater unity of this issue (at least among the 12, which was lacking).

Modern prophets and extra biblical scripture were apart of the reason that all the people joined in the first place and is not equivalent, polygamy was a call that even Joseph wasn't keen on and issues such as this did drive colossal wedges in the church body....as did the trek west. I can't remember where, but I'd heard that during the major moves of kirtland, missouri, nauvoo, and finally out west about half of the saints remained with the body. This was a big sifting period where new revelations were forming a unified body. So, fankly, they're not at all equivalent.

The WoW is the closest on the list of examples you pointed out....It was similar in a gradual change before it became a command (I know very little about the history of this change, so I'll refrain from saying any more about it). But I still see the ban as unique from this as well. And the reasoning and development of revelation is not a one-size-fits-all model. Some are brought about by needing to ask a specific question, some are brought about and enforced immediately, some are meant to sift the people, and some are a product of the preparations and changes of the church body.

Stone Holm

In my opinion, one of the things which has really served to overcome it were the increasing number of mixed marriages after the 1960s and the number of white women with black children. Once people had children who had crossed the racial divide, and had bi racial grandchildren their hearts softened and that had a massive impact on American social mores.

This is one of the things that I find negligible. The numbers of interracial marriages, especially white/black ones were still minute. People of that era (like obama or halle berry) were still a rarity. It's my generation and younger that these changes have become far more drastic. These days, it's harder to not know someone in your family or a friend who isn't mixed or transracially adopted (or both)...it's become that common. The mixed kids can certainly help soften the racial attitudes of relatives opposed to racial mixing, we are more of the bi-product of already altering attitudes and social circumstance. In my opinion, the greater changes in racial attitudes were a mix of changing laws and practices and greater amounts of interaction between races, especially where in places where they would work together in equal standing. It's these opportunities that would also lead to more mixed kids like myself.

With luv,

BD